Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe()

[Michael Wang]

On 04/16/2015 06:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13:03AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
> 
>>> I would be very happy to see a patch that adds cap_ib_smi to the
>>> current tree and states 'This patch is tested to have no change on the
>>> binary compilation results'
>>
>> There are too much reform there (per-dev to per-port), I guess the binary
>> will changed more or less anyway...
> 
> I think this patch series is huge, and everytime someone new looks at
> it small functional errors seem to pop up..

This is a big changing after all :-P

As Doug suggested at very beginning, all these changing are necessary
in order to eliminate the usage of old inferring method, then we will
have a clean stage for next reform.

And since it's big, I tried to classified them according to logical,
to help us review more easily, I'm not sure but compress the series
may increasing the difficulty of reviewing...

> 
> Doing something to reduce the review surface would be really helpful
> here. Not changing the same line twice, using tools too perform these
> transforms and then assert the patch is a NOP because .. tools. Some
> other idea?

Actually the main reform work finished in 1#~15#, the rest are just
introducing cap_XX which we only need to check the description and
usage, thus I'd like to suggest we focus on reviewing 1#~15#, after all,
the rest won't introducing Bug and we can edit them at any time :-P

Frankly speaking I think it's a good thing that we locate errors at
this moment, whenever someone find issues, that means the patch has
been reviewed thoroughly, I think may be just few more version, this
series will become stable ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang


> 
> Jason
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/